turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Marvin Lewis
I've been wondering for a while whether it might be appropriate to create a category for characters who take part in gratuitous sex scenes. HT hasn't been as bad in this decade as he was in the 90s, but back in the day he picked up quite a name for irritating readers with sex scenes that did nothing for the story. The McGraw-Lewis affair is an unappreciated throwback to an unappreciable part of his writing style, if you ask me. Could we go for it? Turtle Fan 03:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC) :It would be redundant in my opinion. TR 22:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC) ::Redundant how? We don't have anything like it already in place. Turtle Fan 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC) :::Well, we have hundreds of characters who participated in sex-scenes. So it's just one more category. :::Incidentally just what is gratutious? I found that particular scene to actually have some merit, as it gave us insight into how McGraw had changed. Other scenes haven't had much use in the HT canon, but then we have to start parsing which ones count and which ones don't. :::Your word for them, unappreciable, doesn't really make me excited about the category. What value does it have, other than to wallow in some aspect of HT's writing we don't like? TR 00:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC) ::::I'm not all that attached to it, it was just a thought. Defining "gratuitous" would have been a prerequisite to any action on this matter, but I think we can agree that there have been sex scenes that provided unnecessary diversions from the action. And I believe McGraw's dalliance with Marvin fits the bill: The role of her character in the story was to incite domestic opposition against the occupation in Germany. This was not served by her frequent bemoaning of her husband's boringness, which seemed to lead up to a meaningless scene that merely allowed her another chance to dwell on her dissatisfactions. So I would contend anyway. ::::As for merit for the category itself, my favorite part of coming here is in-universe chronicling of the stories, but as I see it we also have a duty to provide some literary commentary or at least information on Turtledove's body of work. That puts us on the same plane of the critics, and the critics have bemoaned and lampooned Turtledove's sex scenes quite a bit. Also I know a few people I've tried to get interested in Turtledove's work who have told me "I get sick of all the pointless sex scenes!" Usually in reference to early TL-191 installments. As a matter of literary criticism, it's out there. Changing subjects completely, I just realized that there was a significant age difference between Lewis and McGraw at the time of their congress. Lewis was barely 23, McGraw was a grandmother and "undoubtedly a nineteenth-century woman." Turtle Fan 01:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC) :Perhaps he's not Marvin Lewis? TR 02:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC) ::The reasons you gave that it was a few months ago remain valid. All we have to weigh against them is the idea that it is uncommon for young men to be attracted to women a generation older than them. And yet, this happens all the time. Turtle Fan 03:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) :::This is true. TR 15:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Review of facts Ok, not sure how I came up with a 2008 death date before. Subsequent review leads me to a 1991 death date. That resolves the age difference, BTW. TR 06:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC) :I don't think you did--come up with the DoD, that is. I think I did. I found the picture on some weirdo's blog which wrote a memoriam for a great SF lawyer. It was dated last summer. Turtle Fan 14:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Legal matters "Given Lewis' professional reputation, presumably Turtledove sought to avoid legal conflicts." The recent talk over at the Gaëtan Dugas article made me wonder about this. A dead guy couldn't sue about the portrayal of Marvin Lewis in The Man With the Iron Heart. And Lewis was American, not Canadian like Dugas. Was this lit comm done by someone being specky? I'm just wondering, maybe HT simply left Marvin's surname off as a courtesy to Lewis' fanbase rather than from legal obligation?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 22:39, September 1, 2016 (UTC) :I'd be surprised to learn that Lewis had a "fan base". :We can remove the line. I think we've got enough in the lit comm without it.TR (talk) 22:45, September 1, 2016 (UTC)